New here to the forum--first post--so . . . Hi guys. Been lurking for about a week now.

I recently have been reading both Thomason's and Renzey's books. Good stuff all around. I am well aware that card counters believe that counting is the only way to win etc. etc. but I am interested in progressive betting nonetheless.

The most interesting element of Thomason's system that I encountered was the element of Quit Points and how they seemed to dramatically improve the results, REGARDLESS of the betting system you are using. Have other progression players, card counters OR flat bettors found this to be true in practice as well.

Also, I noticed that Thomason also noted that the complete records of the 102 shoes that he used as the core of this experiments are available by contacting him. Has anyone done this and I was wondering if maybe he had the results in an electronic format, such as a PDF or Word document.

Any responses would be appreciated and I look forward to getting to know everyone on the board.

Maybe you could explain what you mean by a quit point more since I'm not familiar with Thomason's work.

If you mean leaving when you've lost a certain amount, that can't change your net money -- just how much money you win per time. And, in fact, you could be leaving when you have a great advantage. Just the other night I was playing and had a string of losses. However I was counting nd realized that even though I was losing, the count was growing higher and higher. So I continued to bet and increased my bet. (Ultimately I won some big hands towards the end of the shoe with a high count).

On the other hand, if you are just playing for fun and don't want to walk out of the casino losing more than X amount, a quit point seems prudent. It just doesn't affect your EV at all.

He basically states in his books that you should leave any table after 4 losses and move to a different table or wait for the next shuffle. He applied Quit Points to the 102 shoes that he recorded--i.e. the progressive player, card counter and flat bettor quit the shoe after 4 straight losses and moved onto the next one--and all three GREATLY increased their winnings this way. He admits he doesn't know why it works, only that it does and that it has for him not only in his experiments that are thoroughly documented in the book but also in the field when he goes to play.

He basically states in his books that you should leave any table after 4 losses and move to a different table or wait for the next shuffle. He applied Quit Points to the 102 shoes that he recorded--i.e. the progressive player, card counter and flat bettor quit the shoe after 4 straight losses and moved onto the next one--and all three GREATLY increased their winnings this way. He admits he doesn't know why it works, only that it does and that it has for him not only in his experiments that are thoroughly documented in the book but also in the field when he goes to play.

Yes, yes 102 shoes are too small a sample to mean anything. . . I am aware and so is he. He also ran a few hundred thousand hands through a simulator as well as other experiments, it is only that the 102 hand-dealt shoes were the core and initial exercise in his experiment. And, as I mentioned, beyond his experiments it is a tactic that he has used throughout his many years of personal play.

I know that Walter is a contributor to this board and that people have read the book. Where are you all?

Shadow- I don't think we have any active members that play progressions on a regular basis. Had some at one time, but I think that the links and logic provided changed their minds on progressions and especially quit points.

What you can get here are the facts and all the logic that has been proven in several different ways. Qfit has a nice sim of Walters method and some where on this forum Renzey uses a little set theory to show just why all progressions are the same as far as results(zero).

If you don't want to hear what so many have learned the hard way, I would suggest that you try Walter with a PM or E-mail.

He basically states in his books that you should leave any table after 4 losses and move to a different table or wait for the next shuffle. He applied Quit Points to the 102 shoes that he recorded--i.e. the progressive player, card counter and flat bettor quit the shoe after 4 straight losses and moved onto the next one--and all three GREATLY increased their winnings this way. He admits he doesn't know why it works, only that it does and that it has for him not only in his experiments that are thoroughly documented in the book but also in the field when he goes to play.

Shadow priest:In about 30 years of counting and God knows how many shoes, one thing I am absolutely sure about is that I have made a ton of money in certain situations where I have lost 4 or more hands in a row.Basically, early in a shoe the dealer is making those 5 and 6 card hands and killing the whole table. When this happens loads of small cards are coming out and the count is rising. What also happens is many superstitious players flee or perhaps readers of your quit point system leave. Then I am left with no or few other players at the table and a very great count. So no two four hand losing streaks are the same.

Furthermore, you will be changing tables quite often. Losing 4 in a row is far from rare and severly insignificant. Personally, I have lost over 20 hands in a row 3 times. In two of those times I landed up getting it all back and left the table a winner in a short period of time. Fleeing a table because you lost some hands is pure superstition and has no basis in math. Fleeing a table because the count has tanked and the house now has a much bigger advantage is smart and based upon math.

All that said, you please play the way you want. I appreciate those players who flee at the right time.

I have not seen over 2-3 post by Walter in the last 18 months. I think, for the most part, Walter will be very honest with you. His system will not give you an edge and he will tell you that. His experience is typical of short term results. The fall-back for prog systems is the idea that hand shuffles are somehow different. Don't you believe it................